So this Soupy Cupich, cardinal of the Catholic Church, appointee of the Worst Pope Ever, has sicced men in white coats after a faithful priest, a priest who allowed his parishioners to burn a Pervert Pennant.

If the strong arms catch this Rev Paul Kalchik, 56, they’ll wrap him in a straight jacket and toss him to the shrinks for an “evaluation.” More about this not-so-subtle form of torture in a moment—the main point of this post.

First, here’s what happened. Kalchik was 11 when a “gay” neighbor raped him (young boys are a favorite of this set: keep yours away from them). And when he was 19, a homosexual priest went after him.

Kalchik recovered from these attempts at re-orientation and, as is obvious, became a priest himself. A faithful one, by all accounts. All accounts except those put out by Soupy.

Some of Father’s parishioners found an old Pervert Pennant in storage, this one with a cross superimposed on it, and asked to burn it. There was some back and forth on this, as you can read, but eventually the parishioners (not Kalchik) did what was right and torched the unholy cloth.

Soupy found out, became angry, and released the goons.

According to Church Militant, two capersome-merry-lighthearted priests threatened Kalchik with jail and with being sent to the “St. Luke Institute for his ‘psychiatric issues.'” (I loathe the euphemism issues.)

St Luke’s is “a treatment center with a notorious past, whose former CEO was convicted in 2014 of embezzling $200,000 dollars, which he spent on gay lovers.”

Kalchik blew off the devil-may-care-colorful-exuberant goons, who had by then become crude and threatening. “That’s a nice neck you have there, Father,” they in effect said. “Be a shame if anything happened to it.”

Here is what may be Kalchik’s real secular sin, as quoted in the Sun Times: “Of gays in the church, Kalchik says ‘scripture is crystal-clear. It’s against God’s law.'” It is, too. But don’t remind Soupy, who thinks such talk leads “down a rabbit hole.” Soupy would rather talk about global warming.

Kalchik, as of this writing, has gone into hiding. Incidentally, if any reader knows any clear and true ways to getting funds to Kalchik, please let us know.

Now to the point.

Soupy in a letter said he wanted to slip the straight-jacket on Kalchik “out of concern” for his “welfare.”

Here’s what you should already know: psychologists and psychiatrists and other mental health “workers” have no special expertise in knowing right from wrong, nor in discerning good versus evil, nor in dividing moral versus immoral. None. No shrink is better equipped than the next (educated) guy to tell you if sodomy is sinful or celebration-worthy.

To believe otherwise is to embrace scientism in the wickedest way.

What shrinks can do is after a man has been seen to go wrong, and where right and wrong are externally defined by sages (I trust you understand this word), the shrink can give us clues why the man did what he did. Maybe he had (is this still a euphemism?) a chemical imbalance, or a brain injury, or maybe he’s merely under the sway of idiotic ideas, such as Equality. Or maybe, in the case of a good man, the shrink can tell us what sustained this good. But that’s it. About why good is good, and bad bad, the shrink must defer to his betters—as we all must.

The danger is allowing shrinks, or their fans, to believe they know what is good and what is bad defined by their own terms. If we allow the medical profession to define evil we are doomed (we probably are already).

Professional groups of shrinks famously voted to declassify love of sodomy as a mental malady. That vote was only possible after deciding that love of sodomy is good and not evil, right and not wrong, moral and not immoral. Those shrinks learned that false lesson from the culture—which is now the worst teacher. Shrinks act as if their judgment has scientific merit. It has none. None.

Psych evals were a popular form of threat and punishment in communist countries, all of which were in thrall to scientism. As are we. A tranny on Twitter, whose call about Kalchik was received by Soupy, said “Cardinal Cupich went on to announce that Fr. Kalchik was being removed and sent into a program of pastoral care where Cupich hopes Kalchik will get the help and guidance he desperately needs. Cupich said there is no home for hate within the Roman Catholic Church.”

Soupy is wrong. There is plenty of room for hate. All sin should be hated. And no shrink can tell us what sin is.

The pattern is alarmingly similar. The priest has some sort of dust up in the parish (or wherever). For example, a woman gets angry because he preached about contraception, someone claims that he as “boundary issues”, somebody on the staff says that he is “cold” or “remote”. They complain to the bishop. The bishop tells the priest — pressures the priest — to go for “evaluation”. With great trepidation the priest obeys (an important point). He goes for a week or two of evaluation, at the end of which he is told that there isn’t much wrong with him. He goes home, thinking that all is well. Shortly thereafter, he is called in to the bishop’s office, where he is told that the clinic sent the bishop a very different assessment. The priest is diagnosed — and it is always about the same — narcissism and borderline bi-polar. The bishop then really puts the screws to the man to go back that clinic for “treatment”. He is told for three months or so. But when he gets there, and they confiscate his mobile phone and even his shaving kit, and start pumping him full of drugs and monitoring/controlling email, he is told that he’ll be there for six months. The horror show begins.

Go and read the rest.

Update Google “St Luke’s Institute” and look at the pics. Place looks like some kind of psychic abattoir. Google shows a pic from a 2016 gala showing a smiling Cardinal Wuerl (a.k.a. “The Girl”) with others, but it has gone missing from the St Luke website.

Update A priest tells of his recent stay at St Luke’s. Must read! “Specifically, one of the doctors evaluating me mentioned how strange is was that I was not sexually active during high school and had not experimented with homosexual acts. He said that such behavior was a normal part of development.”

I’m surprised Cardinal Cupich is an anti-civil liberties guy. After all, Texas v. Johnson (SCOTUS, 1989) established flag-burning as protected by the First Amendment in cases that “an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.” Ironically in this case, Justice Anthony M Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion.

Of course, the Cardinal can do anything he wants as an empowered Patriarch of the clerisy, as we know from the revealed truth about sexual frolicking within the Kollege of Kardinals. But I think his kneejerk reaction is symptomatic of a deep concupichsence.

Burning the flag was wrong:
– It wasn’t his property to burn
– Creating the spectacle has in turn created a larger spectacle, and not in a good way for anybody

Would’ve been better to discretely throw the thing away and let the matter quietly fizzle out.

The Catholic Church is an institution, independent of its purported/asserted doctrine, and like all organizations leadership will strive to preserve their image and will apply nefarious tactics to do so. This is a common theme everywhere and nobody should be surprised by this.

That’s why with modern technology there’s no good excuse to not be recording inflammatory, and especially, incriminating, interactions — and since one doesn’t know what a given interaction might dislodge, keeping a record proactively just in case is important. Technology makes this surprisingly easy; also, most jurisdictions provide surprisingly leeway on how much one can do of this. Play along and log it all in with video & audio. Then, when the “bad” players start to make a move one is prepared to strike first (or, at least hit with a compelling rebuttal), OR, let them take a stand, see who else comes creeping out of the woodwork, and then hit with compelling rebuttal. Meantime, go along to get along. ABR (Always Be Recording) when you’re with those you know or suspect are up to no good, no telling when something incriminating will occur and if you’re not recording, just in case, you’ll not get the evidence if you try to start disclosing (easier to delete the routine fluff). Let the “bad” players dig their holes as deep as they can (don’t go “Ah-ha!! GOTCHA!!!! the first time they step out of bounds, let the case build and build as long as possible). Make no mistake, this is organizational war — and any combatant that uses tactics such as abusing psych evaluations and the like deserves no quarter.

Chances are, if you’re doing this so is someone else, or, at least they’re watching and taking notes (perhaps only mental notes). Its very rare that corruption/abuse within an institution is occurring unnoticed — perhaps others don’t notice the actual corruption or recognize it, but they are witnessing key things (e.g. who was with who when). If at some point you come out with compelling factual evidence (e.g. audio/video) others will be far more likely to join in knowing they’ll be seen as credible. But don’t count on that. Chances are equally good that some of those folks are scared into silence, or, consciously willing to go along if it makes their situation better — the latter are weasels and deserve to be outed as well. A nice thing about recordings is you can post that online or email that to key recipients anonymously without much difficulty.

What amazes me is how the “nice” folks are so willing to do nothing to combat evil while the evil never stop conspiring and being predatory opportunists.